What is ‘Equality’, anyway?

A recent experience on an online forum, ostensibly about Philosophy, led me to post this, which may or not be relevant to readers of Amerika…

Equality sounds like a great thing. People love the idea.
Because it is an idea. Nothing more. It has no substance.

There is no such thing as equality, anywhere in the natural world. It can only exist in the minds of people.
What is this equality idea, anyway? What does it mean?

First of all, it means that you are not equal. If you were, you would have no need for equality.
It also means that if you can do anything better than anybody else, it will not be seen as better, because we are all equal. Indeed, if you are too good at something, look out: trouble is going to be coming your way.
Whereas if you are no good at anything, you are going to think you are. And insist that others think so, too.
And you will be unable to compare yourself with anyone else, because why would you? You are equal to everyone.
What this results in, is idiots believing they are brilliant. Not just thinking it: believing it.
And the could-be-brilliant wondering if they are idiots, because people ridicule their developing brilliance.

All of this, along with the scrapping of every value that built a civilization, results in reality itself becoming completely obscured, except to the remaining few who make it their business to stay connected to it.
Equality spawns delusion. It can do nothing else.

Each equal person inhabits a separate reality that they create, from their delusion.
In that reality, they can never be wrong; can never not-know anything. Because their reality is based upon the idea of equality.
Thus the twenty-year-old, who has read a few books, knows everything there is to know. Even though he has had no experience of life. His beliefs are unquestionable, because he will not tolerate any questioning of them. Because he is equal to everyone else.
Yet, strangely, this equality does not extend to anyone who does not fit into his idea of reality. Thus you see scenarios where the equal person is able to justify treating whomever he is interacting with, without any hint of respect. Because they deserve it. Because by having a differing viewpoint, they question the equality of the one who sees himself as equal.

Equality leads to the idea that the world owes you a living.
It leads to the idea that if you don’t know something, then that something must be wrong.
It causes people to lose the very notion that there is something to head towards, and to strive for. And the very act of living gives way to a constant quest for entertainment.

Why do you spend time on a philosophy forum?
Are you interested in philosophy?
Do you even have one?
Do you know anything?
Do you think that anybody else does?
Are you here merely to tell anybody else whose ideas are unlike yours, that they are stupid? Or to allow others to tell you that you are stupid, because their ideas are unlike yours?
Or do you come here, merely for entertainment?

How important, really, is the idea of equality?
Is it important at all?
Do you feel it is a dangerous idea?
Or a wonderful one?

50 thoughts on “What is ‘Equality’, anyway?”

CS Lewis put it very neatly when he called equality as the “I am as good as you” syndrome.

Of course, the modern man does not apply this principle when he has in mind someone obviously inferior. But he will be the first to raise the flag of “equality” whenever he feels any kind of superiority in someone else.
The same goes with relativity, another lie tightly in hand with equality. Whenever someone presents a more elaborate and profound point of view, the problem is easily “solved” by saying it is just another opinion, as good as any other.

I saw the best example for the real essence of “equality” in a documentary about the porn industry (don’t ask why I ever watched such a thing).
The “actors” and “actresses” were very offended when anyone dared to imply that what they are doing there can hardly be considered a job, let alone respectable, and demanded that they be considered equal, as any other artists and that it is earning a living like any other.

I always wondered how useful it was to see Jesus as the perfect man, and that he took all the guilt of our sins upon him and gave his life. To me that has had very little to do with my life. Only a few times have I ever tried to hurt someone and most of the time I just make painful mistakes. It’s not useful to think of myself as “born in sin” because I didn’t ask to be born and it’s miserable to think of life that way.

I’ve also never thought Jesus was a Caucasian. He’d have to have been a Hebrew. BUT the moral philosophy of Jesus is the answer to human ills.

I do accept that there is a God of Man and a Son of Man that pertains just to our human lives, but that the creator and creating of all of existence is one thing, not a personage. I think of the perfect man, Adam Kadmon, as a different level of reality. That’s the only way it makes sense to me–that if I pray, it’s to some kind of superconsciousness that is for humans.

So I kind of concur about the True, etc. being Christ and I can get along with Christians, but I’m not one and so they might not accept me, but Truth is what it is, so I must rely on that.

I think Jesus might even object to the characterization of himself as perfect. His point might be construed thus: with correctly organized thinking, we can get closer to perfection of transcendent thought (nirvana).

This does not detract from thordaddy’s point, but I think it reveals the way those of us who are not exotericists (antinomians qualify) might approach spirituality.

“White supremacism” accepts and approves anything white, because they are white, without any other merits. It is no wonder that so many degenerates join this movement thinking they are “supreme” without any personal efforts (besides drinking beer, pumping steroids and starting street fights).

Also, your argument with Christianity and “supremacism” is pure fantasy.

I’m sorry, but you’ve only repeated the radical liberal’s definition of “white supremacism.”

And make no mistake, the arch enemy of all radical liberationist movements is the white Supremacist, i.e., the white Christian.

A genuine white Supremacist is a white man/woman that believes in objective Supremacy, i.e., believes in Jesus Christ as “Perfect Man” and accepts this as empirical evidence for the existence of God.

There is no egalitarianism to be found anywhere in this CORRECT and TRUTHFUL understanding.

That a white degenerate calls himself a “white supremacist” and the radical liberal media go right along with it should tell you that there are very wicked men about. I call them radical autonomists. Self-refutations. A “white Supremacist” that equals a “white degenerate.” It’s like Lady Gaga or an American Jihadist or pro-choice “Christian” or one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero.

Meaning, one can’t be a white degenerate and a white Supremacist simultaneously unless you simply define Supremacist as degenerate just as one would expect a radical liberationist to do.

It may imply, but it is not necessary to actually see Jesus Christ in order to vouch for His existence anymore than I need to see “1349” to assert his existence.

I mean, you exist and I’ve never see you, so there is no empirical evidence for your existence?

And this is not really about converting radical liberationists. Rather, it’s about holding them to the consequences of their beliefs. And since most other moderns are some degree of liberationist, no one holds the radical liberationist accountable to his beliefs.

It goes like this:

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.

Therefore, Jesus Christ is not God.

And if Jesus Christ is not God then there is no “Perfect Man.”

And because “Perfect Man” would be empirical evidence for objective Supremacy, there is no objective Supremacy.

And yet, the radical liberationist is driven to “perfect” man through his multitude of scheming social deconstructions and reconstructions.

But he HAS NO CONCEPTION of “Perfect Man.”

The consequence???

He IS mad insane and seeks to bring the world with him over that cliff.

The consequence???

He is a self-annihilator.
He “strives” for “equality.”
He asserts Supremacy = degeneracy.

I don’t think you realize, thor, that everyone here already gets what you are trying to hammer into them.
Except they all know and demonstrate it with a lot more sensitivity and finesse.
You’re going at it like a Jehovah’s Witness, refusing to listen and consider, and carrying right on as if nobody else has ever even heard of God.
Why not put a cork in it and practice being a little more reasonable?
I get the feeling that if people like you ever achieved control, leftism would look positively benign.

You say prudent things on occasion. But you are an old man in retirement stage. A “young whipper snapper” like me is in fighter stage. I don’t get to think about retiring anytime soon. And largely due to the impotence of your generation, I will almost certainly have to put off thinking about retirement until way past the age that you began enjoying this downtime.

But more to the point:

You ARE an anti-Supremacist. As in, you are one who denies the existence of objective Supremacy.

I’m only “young” relative to you. Funny how your generation is so contemptuous of my generation when the reality should be vice versa.

There is no right or wrong involved here.

You either accept the existence of objective Supremacy or you reject it?

The rightness or wrongness of this acceptance or rejection is beside the point.

The only thing that matters is what springs forth from this acceptance or rejection?

And what springs forth from the rejection of objective Supremacy IS RADICAL LIBERATION…

Pure, unadulterated madness of mind and body.

A “man” who “strives” towards “equality.”

Can there be any greater self-annihilating delusion than that?

But you, yourself, are thoroughly convinced that what springs forth from the acceptance of objective Supremacy IS degeneracy.

This is nothing but evidence for a retired mind. A mind that seeks to be free of the burden of thought.

You are your own kind of radical liberationist and you fear, loathe and despise “white Supremacy.” And this fear, loathing and hatred is not born of anything that “white Supremacy” has ever actually done to you, but born of what genuine white Supremacy actually demands and expects of you as a “white man.”

That’s what you hate. That’s why you are an anti-Supremacist.

And that’s why you subtly “preach” throwing in the towel.

But when you been one of those “never been an underdog”-type “white boys,” people don’t let you throw in the towel especially those scheming radical autonomists.

There is the radical liberationist’s definition of “hate” and then there is the real definition of hate.

You hate the white Supremacist, both the genuine kind AND the imposters that you exalt.

You aid and abet the radical liberationist in exalting the latter as the genuine thing while you do everything you can to entirely dismiss the former AS THOUGH YOU HAD REAL EXPERIENCE with him and thankfully rejected him.

I think white Supremacy matters to itself as a group identification, in a certain part of the brain, but I question the notion of Supremacy–supremacy of what? Only the good stuff, I suspect. The bad stuff? Never saw it before in my life.

You are stuck in a relativist mindset due to a lifetime of liberationist propaganda.

“Supremacy” is a strictly black/white phenomenon in the liberationist mind. It amounts to nothing more than a zero-sum game where rabid individuals attempt to be superior to those relative to them thus making those individuals appear inferior. This allows “supremacists” to be degenerates in order to get what they want out of life. It’s pure deception.

OTOH, objective Supremacy does not REQUIRE any action on your part to have existence. Acknowledging objective Supremacy does not make some unseen individual automatically inferior to you. This is only what you are taught in order to have you deny objective Supremacy and be no better than your run-of-the-mill radical liberationist.

You are coerced, threatened and badgered into denying objective Supremacy SO YOU CAN BE “equal” to the rest of mankind.

Genuine white Supremacy is an entirely voluntarily collective. In fact, the very notion of Supremacy runs diametrically opposed to the coercive collective of “radical liberationists.” Where the latter DEMANDS all-inclusiveness to be realized “true,” the former is exclusive and the criteria for inclusion are the demands of objective Supremacy. You meet them and you are in VOLUNTARILY. You refuse to meet them and the exclusive group still makes no demand of you. The demand is entirely objective and out of the hands of any particular white man.

I am simply bringing to light THE DEMAND that objective Supremacy has put upon “white man” in this dark hour.

This can apply to something as simple as sorting potatoes (take the good, throw out the bad, leave the mediocre in case other food runs out) to writing code, to selecting candidates for the next society’s population.

I understand where you’re coming from, but I think you’re using a linguistically broken approach. “White supremacy” is supremacy of the white.

What you’re talking about is perfection of the individual soul. I think many people here are fully on board with you there, but our perception of “white supremacist” is someone lost in a political doctrine that resembles the fusion of Marxism and nationalism.

Maybe it’s better to just talk about the message of perfection: in your view, Jesus Christ was perfect, thus God exists, thus perfection can be attained, thus your people (European-descended Christians) should strive for perfection.

The interesting paradox is that the genuine Supremacist does not entertain a replication of “perfection” while the radical liberationist, absolutely devoid of the concept of “perfection,” nonetheless attempts to “perfect” mankind.

White Supremacy is not the pursuit of “perfection.” We simply do not have a utopian vision for “Heaven on earth.” The idea that God would essentially create a copy of “Himself” is an idea we reject. OTOH, the radical liberationist, who only “sees” redundant phenomena, subconsciously believes a non-existent God should have created “perfection” here on earth. Ergo, God should be just another “redundant” phenomenon. But since there is no break in “perfection” then perfection cannot be copied and cannot be redundant.

In short, the white Supremacist does not, BECAUSE HE CANNOT, seek “perfection” in himself. Rather, he seeks Supremacy in order to get a sense of perfection. A phenomenon that is never redundant and so it can only be “seen” subjectively. But it can certainly be shared objectively.

The problem here is that this question isolates all intent to what “what anyone else wants,” and doesn’t elaborate to point out that this often overlaps with something else, which is reality itself.

I see two forms of reality in our thinking: (1) pragmatic adaptation, e.g. “don’t like the electrical outlet”; (2) optimization, i.e. “what is best, most beautiful, most truthful and most excellent in life” (shades of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure). The latter is where conservatives play. The former is just life testing us to see if we still want to be alive.

I love to belabor this point especially since Crow has taken such offense to it.

Equality = anti-Supremacy.

It does not primarily mean we are “all the same.” That is a by-product that then gives way to pure subjectiveness and the total devaluation of life.

What “equality” actually means is that no one will be relatively better off than another. Since this belief in “equality” requires coercion so as to thwart Man’s first natural law, the adherents become “equal” in their archetype. This archetype then becomes a meme propagated relentlessly. This archetype is the liberationist who seeks “freedom.” It is without a doubt the dominant meme of our time. And yet the meme has take on a life of its own in seeking a radical conclusion.

If we are all radically free then this “equality” means certain self-annihilation and a “default elite.”

What “equality” actually means is that no one will be relatively better off than another. Since this belief in “equality” requires coercion so as to thwart Man’s first natural law, the adherents become “equal” in their archetype. This archetype then becomes a meme propagated relentlessly. This archetype is the liberationist who seeks “freedom.” It is without a doubt the dominant meme of our time. And yet the meme has take on a life of its own in seeking a radical conclusion.

With this part, I agree. It is well-stated, clear and accurate.

My suggestion: fight equality, and to that end become a Christian conservative, and leave white supremacy to those who have already ruined the term.

My suggestion: fight equality, and to that end become a Christian conservative, and leave white supremacy to those who have already ruined the term.

I’m sorry Mr. Stevens, but that last suggestion has been an utter catastrophe. It is exactly why the “white man” cannot fight “equality.” And it is simply impossible to leave in the hands that which one has no capability of holding. That a degenerate mind accepted a total mischaracterization of his true nature and did so willingly at the behest of another degenerate mind IN NO WAY EFFECTS the genuine white Supremacist.

From the radical liberal perspective, you are a white Supremacist whether you agree with the characterization or not. This is fact, Mr. Stevens. But in your plea, you allow the white degenerates to become the only ones seemingly interested in saving white man.

I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about “believing” – I do care about knowing to the extent that my genetic and cultural conditioning allow. The only thing people have in common is their genetic singularity – the rest being the interaction between their genes and their environment (which includes socialization).

This is why both the “white purist” and the radical autonomist are wrong in their biological reductionism. To say that man is only equal in his “genetic singularity” is to say something both “true” AND MEANINGLESS. From the radical liberationist perspective, this assertion of man being reduced to a “genetic singularity” is “true.” But from a Supremacist standpoint, this assertion is entirely meaningless.

An individual, in contravention of reality, must consciously and without first hand experience conceive himself as a “genetic singularity.” But then, what does he really know and how does he know it?